Gearbox Software Support offers details on a patch for the PC edition of Aliens: Colonial Marines that's now automatically available through Steam. This offers a number of single-player and multiplayer bug-fixes, as outlined in this change list:

General

General user interface improvements.

Various performance improvements.

Fixed issue where a door may not function properly if a Xeno was killed while opening it.

Addressed issue where players could become stuck in a close encounter after killing a Lurker that had pounced them.

Fixed collision issue where bullets would not pass through certain open doorways.

Beamer wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 16:24:Remember when Wesley Snipes was sued for saying Blade 3 sucked? Yeah, it'd be like that.

But but it had Ryan Reynolds in it

Around that time I thought he may end up a pretty decent action star, too.

Pfft. So wrong on that. But yeah, common belief is that Blade 3 sucked because of Wesley, not anything else. Guess he refused to do half of it, so they had to make due with what they could, which meant filming scenes without him at the last minute, filming scenes solely with his stunt double, and adding last minute scenes with the other characters.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they ran out of money. Pretty sure this whole thing was underfunded.

That's doesn't excuse it sucking, it just explains it. And, again, comes down to crappy project management. Sega not giving them enough money is Sega's fault. Them making a garbage game and putting their name on it is their fault.

Randy talking... harder to judge. Randy's job is to talk. Randy probably wasn't fully aware how trash this is (it's hard to tell when you're so close.) And it isn't like Randy can admit it isn't very good, anyway. Remember when Wesley Snipes was sued for saying Blade 3 sucked? Yeah, it'd be like that.Hopefully this just teaches Randy to, as a whole, keep his mouth shut most of the time. The more you open it the more you have to open it. It's better to just not talk as much.

netnerd85 wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 15:40:You still sound like you are defending Gearbox Beamer, big Borderlands fan?

I think this is what I don't understand about this board.

Beamer: No one will deny this was an incredibly poorly managed and executed project. It's almost unbelievable. You can't even blame consoles for this because it looks and runs like crap on them. It's entirely incompetence. [exact quote]

netnerd: You sound like a big Gearbox fan.

Gearbox games I've played:The HL add-on: Was ok. Not great, but definitely entertainingBorderlands: Was ok. Showed potential, but was somewhat of a jumbled messBorderlands 2: Ok, this was pretty great

That's it. No real opinion about Gearbox, other than Randy talks way too much and they've really only backed it up once. They don't seem like anything special to me, and after DNF and this I don't see why anyone would ever hold their breath for one of their releases.

But I don't see how repeatedly saying this project is totally incompetent, overhyped, underdelivered, and probably worth $5 makes me a fan.

Calm down chicken nugget!

You just sound as if you are defending them by making up excuses such as "they ran out of money". No, they advertised something and then slapped people in the face.

Duke Nukem Forever was good. They had little to do with it any way.Opposing Force was awesome. Blue Shift was too short but good.

Borderlands: I don't care about. Looks boring.

Randy is a dbag. Says one thing, delivers another, hides from public view like a child. He did the same thing with DNF. At least man up and defend the game if you believe in it. No respect for that man at all any more.

netnerd85 wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 15:40:You still sound like you are defending Gearbox Beamer, big Borderlands fan?

I think this is what I don't understand about this board.

Beamer: No one will deny this was an incredibly poorly managed and executed project. It's almost unbelievable. You can't even blame consoles for this because it looks and runs like crap on them. It's entirely incompetence. [exact quote]

netnerd: You sound like a big Gearbox fan.

Gearbox games I've played:The HL add-on: Was ok. Not great, but definitely entertainingBorderlands: Was ok. Showed potential, but was somewhat of a jumbled messBorderlands 2: Ok, this was pretty great

That's it. No real opinion about Gearbox, other than Randy talks way too much and they've really only backed it up once. They don't seem like anything special to me, and after DNF and this I don't see why anyone would ever hold their breath for one of their releases.

But I don't see how repeatedly saying this project is totally incompetent, overhyped, underdelivered, and probably worth $5 makes me a fan.

Beamer wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 10:02:No, They touted DX11 for a whileI thought they stopped in 2011. Here they are in 2012 saying that no DX11 effects were implemented but were planned.

I remember seeing that article actually, but it certainly wasn't a confirmation of DX11 features - in fact it struck me as a confirmation that it WOULDN'T have DX11 effects. When combined with the lack of any follow up I honestly don't see how anybody could have been under the impression it would actually have DX11 features.

For final release?Agreed.

But they mentioned DX11 repeatedly in 2011 and early 2012. It was in the Wikipedia article for that reason.

They did shut up about it, so I agree, no one should have expected it. But I think it's proof that they were working on a higher quality PC version and ran out of time/money/whatever.

No one will deny this was an incredibly poorly managed and executed project. It's almost unbelievable. You can't even blame consoles for this because it looks and runs like crap on them. It's entirely incompetence.

Beamer wrote on Feb 15, 2013, 10:02:No, They touted DX11 for a whileI thought they stopped in 2011. Here they are in 2012 saying that no DX11 effects were implemented but were planned.

I remember seeing that article actually, but it certainly wasn't a confirmation of DX11 features - in fact it struck me as a confirmation that it WOULDN'T have DX11 effects. When combined with the lack of any follow up I honestly don't see how anybody could have been under the impression it would actually have DX11 features.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 18:21:I've been following the game casually over the years and never saw any mention of DX11. In fact I was under the distinct impression all along that it WOULDN'T have DX11 features, which is why I considered it a backwards step from AVP 2010.

No, They touted DX11 for a whileI thought they stopped in 2011. Here they are in 2012 saying that no DX11 effects were implemented but were planned.

Watchdogs looked incredibly scripted and misleading, I watched that thing and immediately decided to avoid future preview material for the game because it will only serve to build expectations the game could never meet.

Kosumo wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 18:56:What if that Watchdogs trailer/game play video you got your panties all hot over, turns out not to be game play that is in the game?

Surprisingly enough I'm not willing to preorder that either, as I haven't seen enough about it. It certainly looks promising but I'll wait to see more about it. The thing is, Ubisoft usually allows reviews to be released in advance of the game - with Far Cry 3 there were reviews published over a week before release.

I only preorder games that I know I'm likely to enjoy, where there is a benefit to doing so (discount or preorder bonuses), where I've played the demo and/or where I don't want the experience to be spoiled by waiting. For instance, I preordered Alan Wake, Bioshock, Dragon Age: Origins, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Portal 2, STALKER: Clear Sky, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Borderlands 2, W40K: Dawn Of War 2, The Witcher 2, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, DiRT: Showdown and Dishonored and was very happy that I did for every one (even Clear Sky, which had launch issues). The biggest disappointment I had from a preorder was BRINK and that was mainly because of performance rather than gameplay - I also had RAGE from release but that was a birthday present. But those experiences made me a lot more cautious, which is a good thing. The point is, if you do your research before games are released it's quite easy to see whether they're worth preordering or waiting for sale.

I pity those who preordered ACM and were disappointed by it (not everybody was) but hopefully they'll learn not to do the same in future.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 18:21:I'm always wary of games when developers are unwilling to show off proper gameplay footage. Even when gameplay footage is shown - like with Bioshock Infinite - I'm still wary when it's shown in a very restricted way.

What if that Watchdogs trailer/game play video you got your panties all hot over, turns out not to be game play that is in the game?

When it comes to Watchdogs, I'd put more faith in Ubisoft given their track record. Gearbox? Not so much... Brothers in Arms went downhill, they decided to release Duke Nukem Forever (hah!), and this shit makes me not ever want to buy any of their games. To me they just do standalone expansion packs now (like that Half-Life security guard expansion, the name escapes me). I'll admit that I thought Borderlands was crap too.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 18:21:I'm always wary of games when developers are unwilling to show off proper gameplay footage. Even when gameplay footage is shown - like with Bioshock Infinite - I'm still wary when it's shown in a very restricted way.

What if that Watchdogs trailer/game play video you got your panties all hot over, turns out not to be game play that is in the game?

When it comes to Watchdogs, I'd put more faith in Ubisoft given their track record. Gearbox? Not so much... Brothers in Arms went downhill, they decided to release Duke Nukem Forever (hah!), and this shit makes me not ever want to buy any of their games. To me they just do standalone expansion packs now (like that Half-Life security guard expansion, the name escapes me). I'll admit that I thought Borderlands was crap too.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 18:21:I'm always wary of games when developers are unwilling to show off proper gameplay footage. Even when gameplay footage is shown - like with Bioshock Infinite - I'm still wary when it's shown in a very restricted way.

What if that Watchdogs trailer/game play video you got your panties all hot over, turns out not to be game play that is in the game?

Beamer wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 15:00:Had they come out and admitted the DX11 version was cut people would have been somewhat braced for this, though no one would have expected a game that looks worse than Halo 3 and looks like a garbage budget game.

I've been following the game casually over the years and never saw any mention of DX11. In fact I was under the distinct impression all along that it WOULDN'T have DX11 features, which is why I considered it a backwards step from AVP 2010.

I'm always wary of games when developers are unwilling to show off proper gameplay footage. Even when gameplay footage is shown - like with Bioshock Infinite - I'm still wary when it's shown in a very restricted way. ACM set off so many warning bells and it's a shame that so many people preordered it, especially when the early footage implied that the game was actually going to be half-decent.

It really doesn't bode well for the DLC Season Pass they've been promoting. I imagine that's going to be scaled back dramatically, if they don't simply refund everybody's money. It wouldn't surprise me - as rumoured - if the Wii U version is cancelled, because it has a small user base and few of those are going to take a risk on ACM. I wish Sega wouldn't fuck around with the franchise so much.

Wow dewds, graphics is one thing. Yeah, they are atrocious. What is most concerting is that a new Aliens game COULD have been phenomenal. This one is tone deaf. It falls flat at every junction of the game, with EVERY line of dialogue, every part of the game play element is terrible. Its not even an exaggeration! People are bashing this game for what it is.

People were expecting, or at least me being a fan of the films and the old games (Alien Trilogy PS1, AvP1) that this would have been more than a mediocre shoot 'em up. We were expecting Gearbox NOT to 'milk' this franchise, like Pitchford claimed they wouldn't, and create the scariest Alien game in recent years.

The game is a disservice to the fans, the story material, and an absolute insult.

I'm not trying to excuse Randy and Gearbox. I've said that a hundred times. The game is a disaster. But netnerd, you argued with me that no one cuts graphical features out of games over the final 16 months of development.

That's 100% untrue. It happens on virtually every game. That is how games are made. It's always easier to reduce graphical quality than to increase it. If you start with a low target you'll have a bad looking game. If you start with a high target and scale it back you'll have the best looking game you can make ("you" being important, as some people can make better looking games than others, do to how they work the engine, how clever they are, etc.)

What Gearbox did? It's a disaster. I don't think it's as consumer unfriendly as people are claiming. In September of 2011 they had a DX11 version. In February of 2013 they did not. It's that simple. I don't think this was an attempt to mislead or screw, I think they generally weren't given enough funds by Sega to complete a DX11 version. And, given that all the footage we've seen since December has been crap, it isn't like they still touted that as what the game looked like.

That it fell apart this much is hysterical and absurd.That they never admitted the DX11 version was cut or even commented on the graphical difference is hysterical and absurd.That the game no longer looks as good is expected. It's the degree that matters.

Had they come out and admitted the DX11 version was cut people would have been somewhat braced for this, though no one would have expected a game that looks worse than Halo 3 and looks like a garbage budget game.

Nowhere near as dramatic, but for those of you that don't believe that games often look better when they're around beta than after they've been polished...Better graphics, better lighting, different animations, etc.

FC3 and Oblivion were both cutting edges games that pushed all platforms, including the PC, to their max. Some changes made were improvements, others subjective and some noticeably worse but overall the E3 demos gave an accurate representation of the final product and the final games were still exceptionally strong. With ACM the graphics were bad to start with and the cuts were all made for performance reasons, which only goes to show how poorly optimised the engine is. There were also substantial setting changes for no good reason. ACM is a great example of incompetence and deception.

Oh, and this sums up Randy Pitchford - lying scumbag. It's probably been posted before but deserves reposting.

Beamer wrote on Feb 13, 2013, 17:59:Demo footage often looks better. The guys in that video are wrong to say otherwise. Part of optimizing a game is often cutting back on level of detail.

But this is insane.

What a complete load of shit.

Really?Most games look better at E3 than they do when released. It depends on how close to release, but games demoed at E3 are often shown when not much is put in. It's easier to have higher polygon counts or higher textures when you haven't fully put the physics or scripting in. Or when you haven't optimized for a wider range of systems.

No one ever wants to reduce texture size or poly count. That's done throughout the process. You make a game, you figure out that you can't get it to run at the right frame rate, you reduce polygons.

Call it bullshit, but it's standard.

However, it being done to the degree shown here is insane. And, I don't know, but I assume that footage is all pretty recent. Not 2 E3s out but more like 6 months out, to the point that you have trouble figuring out how they rebuilt those levels in time...

So you think they make everything high detail and then butcher it for performance increases? lol, oh dear. Mate. No.

Show me some of the magical E3 games that are better. They (the E3 videos) may look better nowadays due to FALSE marketing but that's not how games are made.

This is why HD texture packs come out after the game is released.

You need to aim for a level of detail and keep performance in mind while developing, most of the time it's the Xbox 360. They aren't going to go beyond that by much. Why spend ALL the hours developing something high quality if it's 1) not support by the tech and 2) not going to be shipped.

What?No, that IS how games are made.

Seriously?This is how games are made:1) A very low poly version is made. We're talking rectangular cubes on top of each other. This is placeholder just to get a feel for where things go2) This is used to make an extremely poly model3) That model is pared down to a low-mid poly model

Step 2 is hard and time consuming. Step 3 is less so, because you're basing it on Step 2. But it's typically easier to go from a model that's too high a poly count than to increase the poly count of a lower poly model. And, since you want your game to look as good as possible, when you're running through the pre-alpha and alpha stages you often are using higher poly models than you end up with. No optimization has been done, so it's what you're hoping you use. If you can't get the frame rate where you want it, you reduce. Occasionally you have overhead, and you increase, but most companies prefer to reduce, not increase, because most artists find it less time consuming to reduce polygons from models than increase.

Go to any 3d modelers desk and you'll likely see models for in-game assets that are exponentially higher in quality. Helps for bump/normal mapping, too.

Poly count in 3d models doesn't really matter these days (for detail or look of detail, obviously we aren't talking quake style models). Animations/textures/lighting is what it's all about. See the Alien videos. The models are pretty much the same.

Again, why make hi-res textures and animations just to remove them later? They don't.

Yes. You do.

95% of the time it's easier to downgrade quality than upgrade it. You design a level around really cool dynamic lighting, but you can't get the engine to handle it, so you cut it. Features get CUT in final months. They do not get added.

Ever.

Dynamic light is such a feature. If you can't get a decent frame rate you cut it. It doesn't really change gameplay, except in a game like Doom 3 or AvP, and it makes the game run smoother.Poly count gets cut in levels.Particles get cut, like in that exploding spaceship.Animation gets the number of frames reduced, because that can be done with a mouse click.Textures get reduced, because that can be done with a mouse click.

You're flat out wrong about this. No company goes into the final six months of a game and says "hey, Barry, we need you to take those 600x600 textures and completely redo them to be sharper and 1600x1600, and we need you to add dynamic lighting everywhere." But they do say "hey, Barry, our textures are slowing us down, we need you to reduce them (which is easy and doesn't require completely redoing them) and we need you to change most of the dynamic lighting to be static."

Want proof? Fine. Open Photoshop and create a 600x600 image. Now make it look like a sharp 1600x1600 image and tell me how long it takes you. Then reduce that to 600x600 and tell me how long it takes you. Which would a company prefer to be doing when they're in the final months of a product?

Honestly, just think about what the final months of a product are. It's never, ever, "add more!" it's always "don't have time for that, or to fix that, remove it!"

You have the Alpha which is banged out hard and fast. You're not going to spend all the time in the world on a proof of concept. The key here should be gameplay and if the actual concept of the game is fun to play. (But clearly this isn't the key for some dev companies)

The Beta is where the real work is done.

Then the game is optimized for launch but not any where near to the supposed butchering of what the Aliens: CM demo video and actual product show. Performance is a constant thing throughout development, not just tacked on at the end. The level of detail that is supposed to have been cut is insane and not going to happen. The demo clearly showed something that run perfectly fine.

You don't spend the time developing amazing dynamic lighting then go fuck it, let's scrap it and go with something shit. If it was real, then a PC somewhere ran it. Where the fuck is the HQ PC version? It doesn't exist. Never did. They lied, they made shit up.

Again, no E3 video looks better than the final product from pre-2010. Show me some examples if you think so. It's all marketing these days.